This Christian Life

it is no doubt that the holy spirit's work can be manifested in many para-church and extra-ecclesial circumstances. but i'd be careful calling it "church." calvin, for example, had two simple criteria for the mark of the true church: where sacraments are administered and the gospel is preached. that's all. i think that these "greater good" type pastoral means of which you speak in the popular media are sometimes part of the mission of The Church (i.e. body of Christ), but i think calvin's marks of churches is correct in its criterion of the administration of the sacraments. what i'm saying is, a song can't give the eucharist. and if we believe that the sacraments are "signs and seals" of God's grace (again, calvin), then we must receive them in actuality, as members of The Church, in order to really be The Church.

Hey, FYI McFarrin is a Christian. Here's a quote:

Says McFerrin, who himself is a practising Christian, "I hope the music will lead people to a path of their own and inspire them to be hungry for that which is beyond themselves. I also hope it inspires them to open their hearts and discover the art inside themselves."

For McFerrin, who as a child was deeply affected by spirituals, as well as the Anglican chants sung in the Episcopal Church in which he was raised, singing has always been a spiritual act. "To me, music is sacred. I can't separate prayer and spiritual activity from singing," he explains.

Nathan, I think the very "danger" that you are wary of is just as present in Calvin's definition of church. Let me explain by example. Let's hypothetically say that I am not a person of faith but I have been in love with a woman for two years and we decide to get married. My soon-to-be wife and I value humor and enjoyment of life above tradition so we drive to Vegas to be married by Elvis. The ceremony is preformed and Elvis preaches the gospel with the best tongue-in-cheek t.v. evangelist sermon he can manage.

Are we married? Is that marriage blessed by G-d? Is it sacramental?

Let's continue with our hypothetical situation. Three years later my wife and I have a child. For some reason the birth of our child makes me aware of my spiritual bareness (the spirit is tapping me on the shoulder). The only direct preaching of the gospel I have sat through was at my wedding when Elvis teased us, "Turn away from your sinful ways, admit you need Jesus! And you will be saved!". At that point in time we all laughed but now it doesn't seem such a laughing matter.

Was the gospel preached? Was the message I heard G-d's? Was this Church? Was this para-church? Extra-ecclesial? There was no Christian present at these proceedings: does G-d need Christians to be present to be present himself?

I think the danger in defining The Church is the same as defining G-d, both are more mysterious than we understand. On the other hand I don't think Paul was trying to define 'Church' so much as he was identifying a form of gnosticism in our Christian-culture. The scare quotes around "secular" remind me that G-d is in all things and that the very word secular is not very old. Here is an excerpt on the etymology of the word:

In medieval and Late Latin, saecu-laris was particularly used of that which belongs to this world, hence non-spiritual, lay. It is thus used, first to distinguish the �regular� or monastic clergy from those who were not bound by the rule (regula) of a religious order, the parish priests, the �seculars,� who were living in the world, and secondly in the wide sense of anything which is distinct, opposed to or not connected with religion or ecclesiastical things, temporal as opposed to spiritual or ecclesiastical. Thus property transferred or alienated from spiritual to temporal hands is said to be secularized.

Our desire to separate our lives (and the work of G-d) into two spheres runs counter to the very nature of G-d (as I understand Him). So, I, like Paul, have a hard time believing that G-d speaks only through his followers. And I, like Paul, have a hard time believing he saves his blessing only for those who bare his name. He works mysteriously. Thank G-d.

samuel,

thanks for your pictures. you're beginning to get at what i'm feeling about this subject. as usual, i don't think my original post does justice to all the things going on inside my head about this.

when you talked about not being able to separate your "non-secular" world from your "secular" world (for lack of better words), i was reminded that i am the same way. furthermore, i guess what i was trying to get at originally, is that i don't think the distinction between the secular world (all humans) and the non-secular world is that hard of a line. in fact, i guess i'm saying that many more of us are non-secular than we realize. i think we (as a church) tend to draw a line between the two worlds where people-who-attend-church and people-who-don't bump up against each other. that is simply FALSE! and that, my friends, is what i'm trying to say.

agree?

okay... a simple mistake on my part sent you off on a huge tangent. calvin's two criteria are that sacraments are administered and the TRUE gospel is preached. no elvis tongue in cheek stuff. that clarification should clear up all your confusions.

further, no matter how silly you find the sacraments if administered hap-hazardly, i believe that God's power supersedes any human attempts. (are there ANY attempts by humans that aren't "silly" when compared to God's wisdom?) read the classic Power and the Glory by Graham Green for this topic.

"So, I, like Paul, have a hard time believing that G-d speaks only through his followers."

me too. i said that. but church, i believe, should be more carefully understood as the body of christ, which is most appropriately marked by the bread and the cup, and baptism, and preaching of the true gospel. these are biblical models, are they not?

"And I, like Paul, have a hard time believing he saves his blessing only for those who bare his name"

you're either talking about simple semantics or total universalism. i can't tell which without more context.

the historical situation of calvin's doctrine must also be remembered. he was reacting to a catholic church which taught that salvation could only come from within the walls of what they defined as church. calvin rejected that with his new definition, which includes the "invisible church" (i.e. those who are already in heaven and those who do not belong to the institutionalized church but are christ-followers).

the church was defined in Acts, the church must now be defined, and continually re-defined. it is not the same as the mystery of God. the church, as the body of christ on earth, is this side of the great ontological divide, and is therefore a human institution, created by God. true, part of the definition of the church should be that God's knowledge is unfathomable. but there must be marks of the church here and now.

i'll leave you with our biblical truth of the birth of the church at pentacost. take note of the tangible marks that are present here:

Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day. They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved. Acts 2:41-47

"A simple mistake on my part sent you off on a huge tangent. calvin's two criteria are that sacraments are administered and the TRUE gospel is preached. no elvis tongue in cheek stuff."

Is the gospel any less TRUE when spoken by a Elvis costumed man in a tongue-in-cheek tone of voice? Is truth defined by the speaker, the hearer, or the actual message that is being conveyed?

"...No matter how silly you find the sacraments if administered hap-hazardly, i believe that God's power supersedes any human attempts."

Let me clarify that while my hypothetical self may find the sacraments silly I do not. And I think we are on the same page as far as G-d's power to supersede our flawed human attempts at administering them. I am simply making the point that a marriage is a sacramental institution no matter how the wedding was preformed. I guess the question is this: is a sacrament a ritual we perform or a relationship we continue? My guess is somehow (here comes the mystery again) it is both. So then, how do we reconcile a marriage we acknowledge as being sacramental with the fact that we are questioning the sacramental nature of it's origin? Does that make sense?

"[Calvin] was reacting to a catholic church which taught that salvation could only come from within the walls of what they defined as church. Calvin rejected that with his new definition, which includes the 'invisible church'..."

I appreciate what John Calvin had to say (and has to say) to the Church. He was a wise man who knew that the understanding of the Church in his day needed reexamination. I think it's quite possible that like Calvin changed our perspective on who and what the church is we will again have our understanding challenged. In fact I think it is necessary.

As I look at these 'tangible marks of the Church' that you have pointed out in Acts 2 I see a list of arguments: baptism, the eucharist, prayer - all the things that are separating the Church. All the definitions we use to clarify what denomination someone is from, what small section of the Church they belong to. I am not saying these things are unimportant (of course they are) but I'm not sure they are how the world we are The Church - they will only know this by our love (John 13:34-35). This, I think, is the ultimate mark of the Church: that we are a community formed in love for one another and our G-d. This is the intangible but practical mark of the Church of Christ.

"You're either talking about simple semantics or total universalism. i can't tell which without more context."

I don't believe I am talking about total universalism but I also don't think that it's quite as simple as semantics. G-d saves those who have proclaimed his name, he has made that quite clear, but he blesses, uses, gifts all of his creation. Let me again explain with three simple stories.

1) A friend and I are in a field filled with wild flowers and singing birds, far from the busy city. We are studying scripture and we'll say taking communion. Is this possible? Could I be having 'Church'? I think Calvin would say yes, he would call this the invisible church. I am practicing the sacraments and the TRUE gospel is most definitely present - even, if the Psalmist is correct, being preached by all creation.

2) Ok, so now I am in a catholic church and I am taking the Eucharist. I'm surrounded by people who believe differently than I do about it's nature but I am hearing the gospel preached and participating in a sacrament. Does the fact that I do not agree on the nature of the sacrament, or even (possibly) the theology of the gospel keep this from being 'Church'? Again, I think Calvin would say that this is in fact Church.

3) Finally, and here is where I may being pushing the boundaries of what Calvin would agree to, I am back at my wedding in Vegas with a lot of questions. I wont claim to have answers because I think that would be presumptuous of me. All I have are questions that I think are worth asking: Is G-d at this wedding? Is the Gospel any different because it comes from a heathen mouth? Is it any less true? Is it any less blessed?

I don't know exactly where this leads but I wonder - is it possible for people who have yet to be saved to participate (even bless, encourage, and lead) the Church of Christ. I am not asking if it is advisable, only if it is possible. Because if it is possible maybe we should listen more closely, and consider more carefully everything we hear, and see. Maybe the most important messages for our faith are not in the "Christian Bookstore" but instead at Barnes & Noble among the books we don't think of as "Christian".

hey guys. i only have 2 seconds to respond right now..very busy day...but i have do just this:

Maybe the most important messages for our faith are not in the "Christian Bookstore" but instead at Barnes & Noble among the books we don't think of as "Christian"

i laughed aloud at the thought of anyone thinking valid messages for our faith might be found in a christian bookstore :) have you been to one lately? makes me ill.

anyway, i posted something on X. that might be of import for this discussion. see it here.

gotta run. maybe post more later..

Rarely is popular media used for "good" in any way. More commonly it is used for promotion of inaccuracies, half-truths, and propoganda. There would be little hope of using this decayed medium as a mean of conveying a valid message. No one to listens 'popular media' anymore, if they do they are more skeptical than interested.